Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-10-06

San Diego. A. b. Hotchkiss for respondent
s. c. Ward for appellant
Black, respondent, vs.. Black, appellant
San Bernardino. Paris 4 Goodcell, W. A
Harris for respondents: Hargrave & Gay for
Walsh, respondent, VS.. McMenomy ct al
appellants Los Angeles. Barclay e. Will
son, Wells, Van Dyke q Lee for respond
ent II. r. Gage, Bicknell G. White for
Iappellants.
Haley vs. Haley. Los Angeles. Huff &
Glowner, s, Haley, David Lyon.
Hall, appellant, Vs. County of Los Ange-
les, respondent Los Angeles Williams &
McKiniy for appellant; g. NJ. Holton, Bick-
nell White correspondent.
McFadden, ct al, appellants, VS.. Board of
Supervisors of Los Angeles County, respond
ent. Los Angeles. G.. NJ. Holton, Albert NJ.
Stephens for appellants; J. g. McCallum for
| respondent
Levy, respondent, u.s. Burkle ct al, appel
lants Los Angeles. Graves d O'Melveny,
Chapman & Hendrick for respondent; 2. W.
Dooner, for appellants
King, petitioner vs. Superior Court of San
Diego, respondent. Deakin d Wadham for
Marshall, petitioner, VS.. Superior Court of
San Diego. j. g. Deakin for petitioners My
| rick & bearing of counsel
SATURDAY.
Little Creek Water Company Vs. Lord ct al.
Machado, appellant, VS.. Fernandez, respon-
dent. San Bernardino. Harris d Allen for
" u.
Roach ct al, appellants, vs. Riverside Wa
i ter Company, respondent. San Bernardino.
II. c. Rolfe for appellants; Curtis, Otis &
ConnOr for respondent.
appellants. San Bernardino. Attorney
General Andrew B. Paris for respondent II.
c.. Rolfe, c. J. Perkins for appellants.
People, respondent, vs. Martz, appellant.
Loveland, respondent, vs.. Garner, ct al,
| appellants, San Bernardino. Hargrave &
! Gray for respondent; Harris g. Allen for
appellants.
| San Bernardino. Hargrave e. Gray for ap-
| pellant; Curtis, Otis e. Conner for respo-
| nent.
Waldrip, respondent, VS.: Black, ct al, ap-
pellants. Superior. San Bernardino. Hight
& Damron for respondent; Paris, Goodcell
| & Fox for appellants.
Peek, respondent, vs.. Peek, appellant
San Bernardino. H. G. Rolfe for respondent
Bowel & kowell, Harris Allen, Wells,
Van Dyke e. Lee for appellant.
Baird, respondent, VS.. Board of Supervisors
of Tulare county, appellant Freso, Sayle &
Harris for respondent; W. X. Wallace for
Edwards. respondent, VS.. County of Fresno,
appellent Fresno, f. ID. Edward for respond
ent; D. s. Terry for appellant.
Chuck. respondent; VS.; Garrison ct al, ap-
CHECKER ng & Thomas for respondent; W..
Stewart, s. Wright for appellants
Guion; respondent, vs. DOnahoo, appellant
Fresno E. D. Edwards. J. r. Webb for re-
pellant.
Quinlan, respondent, vs. Noble, appellant.
Fresno, Terry 4 Terry for respondent; Stew
art, S. Wright for appellant.
Larsen, respondent, vs.. Hansen, appellant
Fresno, Tupper & Iupper for respondent;
Wiggington, Creed 4 Hawes for appellant.
Lancroft, respondent, vs. Cosby ct al. ap-
pellants Fresno. Wharton & Short for re-
spondent S. III. Holmes for appellants.
Hawn. respondent, VS.. The 76 Land and
Water Company appellant: Fresno s: j.
Kinds for respondent; WiggingtOn, Greed &
Hawes for appellant
Hughes, respondent, vs. Thompson ct al,
appellants. Fresno. H. s. Dixon for re-
spondent Terry & Terry for appellants.
Waggle, Sr., appellant, VS.. Worthy ct al,
respondents Fresno. Nurse & Church for
appellant; Terry & Terry for respondents.
spondent Fresno. w. D. Grady for ap-
pellant; s. ]. Kinds for respondent.